ArticleIrish journal of medical science2020
A comparison of outcomes of eversion versus conventional carotid endarterectomy: one centre experience.
Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPrompt carotid endarterectomy for stroke prevention remains an essential component of treatment for symptomatic carotid stenosis. There exist a number of techniques, most commonly, access via a longitudinal arteriotomy for conventional carotid endarterectomy (CCEA), but eversion endarterectomy (ECEA) may also be used. Neither has been definitively proven as superior. We outline the experience in our institution of these two approaches.
methodsAll patients who had surgery over a 7-year period (2009-2015) under a single consultant vascular surgeon were included in this analysis. Midway through the study period, the operative technique was changed from exclusively CCEA to exclusively ECEA. Demographics, outcomes, and complications, including re-intervention and restenosis rate were gathered from a variety of sources to maximise data reliability and accuracy.
resultsTwo hundred four interventions were performed during the study period; 114 in the CCEA group, 90 in the ECEA group. Demographics and indication for surgery was well matched between groups. A significant difference was found between operative time (128.6 ± 2.3 vs 70.7 ± 12.2 min) and need for shunting (19.3% vs 1.9%), between CCEA and ECEA. Haematoma rates were higher in the ECEA group (7.7% vs 1.7%), but this can be attributed to differing use of perioperative anti-platelet therapy. There was no other statistical difference in morbidity, mortality, restenosis rates, or re-intervention rates between groups.
conclusionThese two carotid endarterectomy techniques are equivalent in terms of outcome, but ECEA can be performed in a significantly shorter operative time and reduces need for shunting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.